Bugs by Merwin Severtson

Why are we humans, considered by "Evolutionists", to be barely more than
bugs?

It appears that in their thoughts, we truly are not ranking any higher
than just another type of animal.

And rather, we are seen as animals that are completely out of order,
destroying the planet and needing the vast majority of us to be
eradicated in order to save the world.

These "scientists" seem to have this survival of the fittest
perspective, and they, that hold their purse strings have their propaganda machinery in full swing to convince
the masses of the evolution "truth" that used to be only a theory.

One might ask "why?", what could possibly be the beneficial yield for
their efforts? What is their "end game"?

They are reaching for a world population limit of 500 million.

(Google - "Georgia Guidestones" and see Wikipedia entry for these
intentions, also refer to Humanist Manifestos 1 & 2)

(Notice propaganda desensitization movie "The Day The Earth Stood
Still")

IF they are going to arrive at this "500 million" goal they would have
to somehow reduce the world's populace by at least 85 per cent.

The next question is, how are these bits of information related?

If the value of human life is reduced to perhaps less than that of
cattle, then the cancerous un-wanted peoples can be surgically removed
for the sake of the health of that which remains.

Say for instance, you have a world population that is reported to be 95
per cent destructive to their own living space.

Then you have the controlling 0.5 per cent mobilize the military to
destroy the 85 per cent that is your goal number... the remaining 10 per
cent is easily controlled and conditioned to be docile and less
destructive to the environment.

The remnant would be an acceptable "working class", fit to serve the
"Big Dogs"! Zero population growth is then within reach and the world in
general, (according to them) would be a better place for all to live
in.

But first, the value of "human" life must be devalued. It can not be
considered any more precious than other animal life forms.

Once these philosophies are embraced... at least by the military powers
of the world, then the less acceptable sectors of society can be done
away with.
Religious zealots, Jews, or whatever happens to be the unwanted caste of the day.

These "unsavory qualifiers" for targeted groups are merely a ploy...
they will attempt to "get the ball rolling" with societies most hated
sectors first. But ultimately, little by little, everyone's group will
be included in the holocaust.

Remember the 85 per cent goal.

Presently our culture is being bombarded with a huge variety of hate
propaganda, including hate for the haters.

Hate for the Gays, hate for the Homophobes, hate for the religious, hate
for the Atheist, hate for the colored, for the whites the blacks, and
the Jews, everyone is in fear and hatred, or so it seems!

All this is useful to those who want to radically reduce the population
of the planet! They are counting on mutual fear and hatred, because they
think that few will object when it is the other group that is being
exterminated!

My wife, goes almost daily to chat rooms where the category is "spiritual and
religious". There, it seems to be an ongoing slugfest of Atheists
harassing the "religious nut-cases" trying to show them how demented
they are.

The reason I bring this up is that the common opinion most of them hold
is how much the Christian hates them in their current non-christian
condition.

Now, certainly they have a lot of other opinions that are equally off
target, but the thing that impresses me is that they think we are all
bigots who want them dead or saved.

If you read the mean spirited comments of these in the chat rooms you
quickly conclude that a lot of them wish us Christians dead or
"enlightened".

These types of fears and hates are common from sector to sector, and not
just with Atheists and Christians.

All this serves the ones who really want us dead, because they are
certain that the Christian will not defend the Atheistic Gay and vice
versa. The ones that want to thin the population by 85 - 90% will include all walks of life that are human in their culling except themselves. Refer also to the Nazi model of WWII, where, if you were not Aryan you
were subhuman. They are counting on our mutual hatred to make it easier for them, and they are certain of it.

Well the powers pulling the strings are wrong! Here is one Christian at
least that will defend the Atheist Gay with my life and my prayers. And I
will pray for, and love the enemy who seeks my death... they, (we) are not
bugs.

Comments

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

sending

Roger Crigger 7 years agofrom Northern Idaho

.... The wise old birds will continue to smirk and snicker until the day that the sky actually DOES fall. Until that day, the common consensus in the hen house will be that MRS. Penny is a Loony bird. Until the first star actually does come crashing to the Earth, then the community will wonder how it was that the bits and pieces of fallen sky scattered about the yard had gone unnoticed all these years?

Chasuk 7 years ago

We've argued this before. I disagreed then, and I disagree now.

You have managed to turn the idiomatic into the ideological.

To you and to me -- to most of us -- meat is edible animal flesh. To many cooks and chefs, meat is something more specific. To them, it is mammalian flesh only, excluding fish and poultry.

Are they wrong?

Is a tomato a vegetable? That depends on whether you are using a culinary or a botanical classification.

If you are a capital "E" evolutionist, then you are likely a natural scientist. This includes paleontologists, geologists, chemists, botanists, entomologists, zoologists, and meteorologists. Each of these disciplines (as is true of every discipline in science) has its own jargon.

For scientists, jargon is professional shorthand. To us, it might seem opaque, but the intention is not (usually) obfuscation.

Any scientist whose disciple falls within the field of biology uses a taxonomic classification system that tries to categorize all of the life-forms of earth. Unsurprisingly, taxonomy has a specialized vocabulary.

Taxonomy divides all life into ranks of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

Biologists place humans in the Animal kingdom, the Chordata phylum, the Mammalia class, the Primates order, the Homininae family, the Homo genus, and the sapiens species.

Should they place humans in the Plant kingdom? What about the Fungi or Bacteria kingdom? If not those, how about the kingdoms of barely-multicellular or single-celled organisms?

I'll return to this issue of nomenclature shortly, but for now let's examine the ideology.

You claim that certain scientists and unspecified others (presumably the wealthy and powerful) wish to reduce the world's population to 500 million.

Let's take your random bits of evidence and sort them.

In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was published in the May/June issue of the journal New Humanist.

This journal espoused the philosophy of humanism. The philosophy of humanism is perhaps best described by Kurt Vonnegut, who wrote, “I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead.”

The manifesto is explicitly egalitarian.

Article 15: "We assert that humanism will . . . endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few."

That doesn't sound genocidal to me.

In 1951, 20th Century Fox released the Science Fiction film "The Day the Earth Stood Still." It was based on a 1940 short story. Even in 1940, tales of alien invasion weren't new. H.G. Wells wrote "The War of the Worlds" in 1898.

In 1973, the Humanist Manifesto II was published.

From its preface: "Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook."

This seems like an honest appraisal of the 40 year interval since the publication of the original Humanist Manifesto.

Both manifestos would have seemed scary to Christians -- how dare uppity atheists and intellectuals spread their views! It's proselytizing! -- and generated a lot of alarmist buzz that persists to this day, merchandised on the webpages of conspiracy theorists (some disingenuous, some sincere).

In 1980, the "Georgia Guidestones were erected, paid for by the pseudonymous R. C. Christian.

The name was probably selected to evoke a connection with Christian Rosenkreuz, the 14th-century founder of Rosicrucianism (the theology of a secret society of occultists, the Fraternity of the Rose Cross).

Although there are people today who call themselves Rosicrucians, there is no evidence that a Fraternity of the Rose Cross ever existed.

Remember that there are people today who call themselves Jedis.

So, a wealthy man who spends too much time reading occult literature pays to have the Georgia Guidestones raised.

You become interested in Christian eschatology (maybe this interest was piqued pre-Georgia Guidestones, I don't know).

I also don't know to which precise eschatological interpretation you subscribe, but you are apparently convinced that the end of the world is coming soon.

My finial analysis? Take one man eschatologically-obsessed (or so it seems to me), expose him to Humanist Manifesto/Georgia Guidestones/Rosicrucian fringe theories, and he concocts the fable that I am now rebutting.

Impressively, he manages to insert commonsense scientific nomenclature into the fable.

skepler 7 years agofrom North Idaho

I may not label myself as Christian (or any other "sect") but I would label myself as your friend. I agree that many Atheists do in fact harass and "hate" Christians, and this is not acceptable. Just as unacceptable as any other hating of anyone. Now lets jump back about 50 years to a time where Christian parents (and ministers) would "shove religion" down their child's throat (my father was a victim of that). These were times where you were either Christian or a heathen that needed to be "purified". This sort of abuse did one of two things, it either made the individual fear to the point of faith or it turned them hostile against religion. It is these and their spawn that harass out of being taught that harassment is the way to "convert". I am in no way defending Atheists, but I was wanting to make clear that like you I do not and will not hate one or another, and I feel that with the change in the way the churches work now days I think the hate should decline over time. Either that of lead to their and everyone's demise. As for the evolutionist's... wow I think I found something to Hub about because that would be a very long comment.